On the Australoids, they are racially related to Blacks (I only consider Melanesians and Andamanese Islands to be Black )

Australoids are not racially related to Negroids, neither anthropologically nor genetically. You seem to believe that anyone in the world that shows dark skin pigmentation and primitive features somehow is immediately a "Black African" or related to them.

Quote:

but it is East Africans who are the world's most genetically diverse.

Because not only have they experienced genetic flow from North Africa, the Middle East, and other areas of sub-Saharan Africa during more "recent" times, but also due to the fact that the ancestral prehistoric populations of the area were different than other sub-Saharan Africans:

"The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity -- and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis -- makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) -- that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe."

Everyone on the planet did not EVOLVE out of Blacks, the pre-historic HOMO SAPIAN SAPIANS (not to be confused with Homo Sapian Idaltu which was discovered in Herto, Ethiopia and Omo/Klasies. homo sapien idaltu are considered anatomically modern but distinct from homo sapien sapien ) who migrated out of Africa were Black. Guess what? There's no denying that modern homo sapians sapians originated in East Africa and the indiginous people of East Africa have always been Black.

Keep dreaming. Neither anthropologically, nor genetically, did these early humans correspond to any Negroid populations.

Quote:

It's frustrating going back and forth with you.

Hilarious that you, of all people, should say that.

Quote:

SCIENTISTS admit that these were modern looking homo sapian sapians who would go unnoticed (in modern Western clothing of course ) in any supermarket or public setting.

No, that's what the particular author of that article claims. I have shown you other scientists clearly not supporting such a notion.

Quote:

I'm not fabricating this, what you can't get through your thick skull is that these were MODERN HOMO SAPIANS SAPIANS- We could mate with them, they looked human though and through.

What you seemingly can't get through your armor-plated skull is that Homo Sapiens was "anatomically human", but it did not have the commonly accepted racial features of ANY modern morphological group (Australoids, Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Negroids.) Therefore claiming that we all "sprung up" from Negroids is total nonsense.

Quote:

According to YOU, what point specifically did homo sapien sapien start looking like regular modern day dumans??

This is clearly explained in the already cited Colin Groves' article:

"When, then, did H. sapiens begin to split into races? The evidence indicates that modern racial features developed only gradually in each geographic area. The earliest H. sapiens specimen outside the Africa/Levant region is from Liujiang in China, whose dating was recently confirmed at 67,000 BP by a group led by Guanjun Shen of Nanjing Normal University. Like Qafzeh and Skhul, Liujiang is a "generalised modern"; it has no Mongoloid features.

The East Asian fossil record is not good enough to show when Mongoloid features began to develop. All we can say is that they must have developed before the end of the Pleistocene (12,000 BP) because this is when people began to cross what is now the Bering Strait (which was then a land-bridge); and Native Americans are Mongoloid.

H. sapiens began to enter Europe about 40,000 BP, but it is only at 28,000 BP that we get a fossil that shows any Caucasoid features - the Old Man from Cro-Magnon, in France.

Florisbad (259,000 + or - 35,000 BP) is anatomically intermediate.

Qafzeh (115,000 BP) is a "generalised modern human".

Within the African homeland, the appearance of Negroid features is debatable. The skull from Border Cave, on the South Africa/ Swaziland border, may be 60,000 years old and may show Negroid features, but both claims have been challenged.

And Australia? The earliest widely accepted dates for human occupation are of the order of 60,000 BP, not more, according to Bert Roberts of La Trobe University and the late Rhys Jones of the Australian National University. The claim that the Mungo Man skeleton is 62,000 BP has recently been challenged. \According to a recent study led by Jim Bowler of Melbourne University, both Mungo Man and Mungo Woman may be only 40,000 years old (AS, April 2003, pp. 18-21), but they are still the earliest skeletal remains we have from Australia. Are they Australoid?

Of all "major races", Australoids have evidently changed least from the generalised modern human pattern, but the flat, receding forehead and angular skull vault that characterise many full- blooded Aboriginal people today are somewhat different to the Qafzeh/ Skhul pattern. A 1999 study by Susan Anton and Karen Weinstein of the University of Florida, in the process of confirming that some of the Australian fossils (including most of the famous Kow Swamp series) had undergone artificial head deformation in infancy, found unexpectedly that most of the Pleistocene fossil Australian crania are rounder-skulled than modern ones. So racial features developed late in this part of the world, too.

In summary, the new discovery at Herto does not shatter any myths, but it extends the dataset, shifts the weight of evidence yet more decisively in favour of the Out-of-Africa model of modern human evolution, and helps to place modern racial variation very firmly into context."

Notice that even those enthusiasts who would like to see Negroid traits already present in a supposedly 60,000 year old human fossil have not been successful at proving it... and you hilariously want to make me believe that 160,000 year old humans were already Negroid???

Australoids are not racially related to Negroids, neither anthropologically nor genetically. You seem to believe that anyone in the world that shows dark skin pigmentation and primitive features somehow is immediately a "Black African" or related to them.

Because not only have they experienced genetic flow from North Africa, the Middle East, and other areas of sub-Saharan Africa during more "recent" times, but also due to the fact that the ancestral prehistoric populations of the area were different than other sub-Saharan Africans:

"The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity -- and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis -- makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) -- that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe."

Keep dreaming. Neither anthropologically, nor genetically, did these early humans correspond to any Negroid populations.

Hilarious that you, of all people, should say that.

No, that's what the particular author of that article claims. I have shown you other scientists clearly not supporting such a notion.

What you seemingly can't get through your armor-plated skull is that Homo Sapiens was "anatomically human", but it did not have the commonly accepted racial features of ANY modern morphological group (Australoids, Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Negroids.) Therefore claiming that we all "sprung up" from Negroids is total nonsense.

This is clearly explained in the already cited Colin Groves' article:

"When, then, did H. sapiens begin to split into races? The evidence indicates that modern racial features developed only gradually in each geographic area. The earliest H. sapiens specimen outside the Africa/Levant region is from Liujiang in China, whose dating was recently confirmed at 67,000 BP by a group led by Guanjun Shen of Nanjing Normal University. Like Qafzeh and Skhul, Liujiang is a "generalised modern"; it has no Mongoloid features.

The East Asian fossil record is not good enough to show when Mongoloid features began to develop. All we can say is that they must have developed before the end of the Pleistocene (12,000 BP) because this is when people began to cross what is now the Bering Strait (which was then a land-bridge); and Native Americans are Mongoloid.

H. sapiens began to enter Europe about 40,000 BP, but it is only at 28,000 BP that we get a fossil that shows any Caucasoid features - the Old Man from Cro-Magnon, in France.

Florisbad (259,000 + or - 35,000 BP) is anatomically intermediate.

Qafzeh (115,000 BP) is a "generalised modern human".

Within the African homeland, the appearance of Negroid features is debatable. The skull from Border Cave, on the South Africa/ Swaziland border, may be 60,000 years old and may show Negroid features, but both claims have been challenged.

And Australia? The earliest widely accepted dates for human occupation are of the order of 60,000 BP, not more, according to Bert Roberts of La Trobe University and the late Rhys Jones of the Australian National University. The claim that the Mungo Man skeleton is 62,000 BP has recently been challenged. \According to a recent study led by Jim Bowler of Melbourne University, both Mungo Man and Mungo Woman may be only 40,000 years old (AS, April 2003, pp. 18-21), but they are still the earliest skeletal remains we have from Australia. Are they Australoid?

Of all "major races", Australoids have evidently changed least from the generalised modern human pattern, but the flat, receding forehead and angular skull vault that characterise many full- blooded Aboriginal people today are somewhat different to the Qafzeh/ Skhul pattern. A 1999 study by Susan Anton and Karen Weinstein of the University of Florida, in the process of confirming that some of the Australian fossils (including most of the famous Kow Swamp series) had undergone artificial head deformation in infancy, found unexpectedly that most of the Pleistocene fossil Australian crania are rounder-skulled than modern ones. So racial features developed late in this part of the world, too.

In summary, the new discovery at Herto does not shatter any myths, but it extends the dataset, shifts the weight of evidence yet more decisively in favour of the Out-of-Africa model of modern human evolution, and helps to place modern racial variation very firmly into context."

Notice that even those enthusiasts who would like to see Negroid traits already present in a supposedly 60,000 year old human fossil have not been successful at proving it... and you hilariously want to make me believe that 160,000 year old humans were already Negroid???

European physical anthropologists apparently uncovered Negroid traits in the oldest skeletal remains to be found in Egypt from 30 to 35,000 years ago: "Strong alveolar prognathism combined with fossa praenasalis in an African skull is suggestive of Negroid morphology [form & structure]. The radio-humeral index of Nazlet Khater is practically the same as the mean of Taforalt (76.6). According to Ferembach (1965) this value is near to the Negroid average." The burial was of a young man of 17-20 years old, whose skeleton lay in a 160cm- long narrow ditch aligned from east to west. A flint tool, which was laid carefully on the bottom of the grave, dates the burial as contemporaneous with a nearby flint quarry. The morphological features of the Nazlet Khater skeleton were analysed by Thoma (1984). The 35,000 year old skeleton was examined using multivariate statistical procedures. In the first part, principal components analysis is performed on a dataset of mandible dimensions of 220 fossils, sub-fossils and modern specimens, ranging in time from the Late Pleistocene to recent and restricted in space to the African continent and Southern Levant.

They weren’t black – they may be confusing themselves with Pygmy often used as slaves in Egypt. Maxillofacial reconstruction via CT scans of relics from Egyptian pharaohs clearly indicates this. Despite claims to the contrary, Egyptians were not Aryan, but rather closer to looking to modern Arabic’s.

Hello,
If you believe the Bible, how is it that Moses lived in Pharoah's house without being detected as a Hebrew. We can assume that Moses and Pharoah were the same color, because there was no differences in physical traits. Point #2, when Jethro's daughter saw Moses, she described him as an Egyptian, further making the point it was easy to get a Hebrew and an Egyptian confused. When God (YHWH) told Moses to go to Pharaoh with instructions to let the children of Israel go, Moses hesitated. YHWH showed Moses the miracle of changing his hand to "leprous as snow" which obviously means that Moses did not look like "leprous as snow" because if he did, there would not have been a change or "miracle" Another point, when YHWH changed Miriam to "leprous as snow" she was described as "one of the dead."
So Miriam was not white. Countless evidence, Moses saw an Egyptian smiting one of his an Hebrew, one of his brethren. So the children of Israel were not white. All of this is in Exodus. Please read it. Your salvation does not lie in whiteness or even blackness for that matter. But for the sake of telling history, it is important to know these things.

I am getting pretty tired of this. This will be my last post on this subject.

Quote:

Australoids are not racially related to Negroids, neither anthropologically nor genetically. You seem to believe that anyone in the world that shows dark skin pigmentation and primitive features somehow is immediately a "Black African" or related to them.

In phenotype, most Papa New Guineans could pass for Africans.

Quote:

Keep dreaming. Neither anthropologically, nor genetically, did these early humans correspond to any Negroid populations.

You haven't proved they didn't, you just said they didn't.

Aside from some archaic features, homo sapian idaltu would go unnoticed in any public setting. The very first homo sapien sapiens looked fully human, through and through. We haven't evolved since then.

Quote:

What you seemingly can't get through your armor-plated skull is that Homo Sapiens was "anatomically human", but it did not have the commonly accepted racial features of ANY modern morphological group (Australoids, Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Negroids.) Therefore claiming that we all "sprung up" from Negroids is total nonsense.

First of all, I am talking about homo sapien sapiens. Second of all, did they have green skin and metal hair? Homo sapien idaltu could pass in any public setting and go unnoticed, you've read the articles I provd, take it up with those SCIENTISTS. Homo sapien sapiens looked human through and through (again we could mate with them) and Black people hav ALWAYS been the indiginous peoples of eastern Africa and sub-saharan Africa generally. The descendents of th pre-historic Africans who migrated had to adapt to new EurAsian environments, not the ones who 'stayed behind'.

Quote:

This is clearly explained in the already cited Colin Groves' article:

"When, then, did H. sapiens begin to split into races? The evidence indicates that modern racial features developed only gradually in each geographic area. The earliest H. sapiens specimen outside the Africa/Levant region is from Liujiang in China, whose dating was recently confirmed at 67,000 BP by a group led by Guanjun Shen of Nanjing Normal University. Like Qafzeh and Skhul, Liujiang is a "generalised modern"; it has no Mongoloid features.

Homo sapien sapiens never split into distinct biological races. The descendents of pre-historic African migrants adapted to their new EurAsian environments.

Quote:

Within the African homeland, the appearance of Negroid features is debatable. The skull from Border Cave, on the South Africa/ Swaziland border, may be 60,000 years old and may show Negroid features, but both claims have been challenged.

Like the Out of Africa theory has been 'challenged' but accepted by the mainstream community. 50 000 years ago, the pre-historic E.African immigrants looked fully human. They (the ones remaining) didn't adapt to a new environment. To my frustration (if not) are they inclu. 'Capoid' as 'Negroid'?

Quote:

And Australia? The earliest widely accepted dates for human occupation are of the order of 60,000 BP, not more, according to Bert Roberts of La Trobe University and the late Rhys Jones of the Australian National University. The claim that the Mungo Man skeleton is 62,000 BP has recently been challenged. \According to a recent study led by Jim Bowler of Melbourne University, both Mungo Man and Mungo Woman may be only 40,000 years old (AS, April 2003, pp. 18-21), but they are still the earliest skeletal remains we have from Australia. Are they Australoid?

Of all "major races", Australoids have evidently changed least from the generalised modern human pattern, but the flat, receding forehead and angular skull vault that characterise many full- blooded Aboriginal people today are somewhat different to the Qafzeh/ Skhul pattern. A 1999 study by Susan Anton and Karen Weinstein of the University of Florida, in the process of confirming that some of the Australian fossils (including most of the famous Kow Swamp series) had undergone artificial head deformation in infancy, found unexpectedly that most of the Pleistocene fossil Australian crania are rounder-skulled than modern ones. So racial features developed late in this part of the world, too.

Race is phenotype (skin deep), phenotype is hair texture, facial features and skin complexion. How many times do I have to tell you that the modern homo sapien sapiens were fully human through and through, could go unnoticed in any public setting and we could mate with them. Even the homo sapien idaltu were anatomically modern humans inspite some archaic features.

You keep mentioning the Australoids but SCIENTISTS consider the Khoi-San (who have the world's most ancient dna, and I hate to say this on stormfront, but are the most genetically related to chimpanzees whom we share a common ancestor with ) to be the earliest link to the original homo sapien sapiens. They likely spoke 'click click' languages as well.

We can only go back and forth and I can't reason with you.

You are trying to make out the original homo sapien sapiens as though they were ape like and biologically primitive and this is simply not true, they looked like us (human). What does it mean to you that life begins in eastern (possibly southern) Africa? According to you, what is "NOW" Black Africa, is the birthplace of humanity. You can't stand the idea of humanity being descended from Black Africans because you think this makes you 'Black African deep deep inside', one theory that's almost universally accepted is that human life began in sub-saharan Africa does this mean that sub-saharan Africa is your home? You can accept that (what is "NOW" ) Black Africa was the home of the earliest homo sapien sapiens, in fact all of our homind ancestors, but your White Nationalist world is over if Black Africans indiginous to the 'cradle of humanity' today are the original and oldest people. Can you stand the idea that 'Mongloid' people from Asia were on this continent before you?

Race is phenotype (skin deep), phenotype is hair texture, facial features and skin complexion. How many times do I have to tell you that the modern homo sapien sapiens were fully human through and through, could go unnoticed in any public setting and we could mate with them. Even the homo sapien idaltu were anatomically modern humans inspite some archaic features.

Race can be determined from marrow within a bone.Enough of this “skin-deep” garbage.
But what we are trying to get through YOUR thick skull,because negros do have thicker skulls,is that the first homo sapiens sapiens were not genetically negroid.

Race can be determined from marrow within a bone.Enough of this “skin-deep” garbage.
But what we are trying to get through YOUR thick skull,because negros do have thicker skulls,is that the first homo sapiens sapiens were not genetically negroid.

But what we are trying to get through YOUR thin skull, because whites do have thinner, weaker skulls, is that the first homo sapiens sapiens were genetically African. The concept of "negroid" is a social construct of 18th century Europe. The five race classification system was invented by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach in 1776. It has no relevance to modern paleoanthropology.
Afrocentrists, not negrocentrists can rightly take pride in the fact that the earliest yet discovered specimens of humanity originated in Sub-Saharan east Africa."The most widely accepted view among current anthropologists is that the human species originated in the African savanna between 100 and 200 thousand years ago, colonized the rest of the Old World and Oceania by 40,000 years ago, and finally colonized the Americas by 10,000 years ago. Homo sapiens displaced groups such as Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus and Homo floresiensis through more successful reproduction and competition for resources."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sa..._and_ethnicity

But what we are trying to get through YOUR thin skull, because whites do have thinner, weaker skulls, is that the first homo sapiens sapiens were genetically African. The concept of "negroid" is a social construct of 18th century Europe. The five race classification system was invented by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach in 1776. It has no relevance to modern paleoanthropology.

Excellent! Now that you've taken Anthropology 101, try Physical Anthropology, where they tell you that race does exist, but that it doesn't really matter.

But what we are trying to get through YOUR thin skull, because whites do have thinner, weaker skulls, is that the first homo sapiens sapiens were genetically African. The concept of "negroid" is a social construct of 18th century Europe. The five race classification system was invented by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach in 1776. It has no relevance to modern paleoanthropology.
Afrocentrists, not negrocentrists can rightly take pride in the fact that the earliest yet discovered specimens of humanity originated in Sub-Saharan east Africa.

But by your own logic how can someone be “genetically African”?You say “The concept of ‘negroid’ is a social construct of 18th century Europe”.Well Africa is just the name that the romans gave to part of that land.An African is someone who lives in Africa,not a genetic sub-species of people.

But by your own logic how can someone be “genetically African”?You say “The concept of ‘negroid’ is a social construct of 18th century Europe”.Well Africa is just the name that the romans gave to part of that land.An African is someone who lives in Africa,not a genetic sub-species of people.

Wow a study that shows that people know what race they are when using the social construct of contemporary racial classification...amazing!

I couldn't find any such word as "negrocentrism" in the dictionary.

"An African is someone who lives in Africa not a genetic sub-species..." did you figure that out all by yourself?

That must mean that a European is someone who lives in Europe, not a genetic sub-species and an Asian is someone who lives in Asia, not a genetic sub-species...ad nauseum.

There are many differing classification systems for race. All of them flawed and none of them having universal acceptance in science.

When I use the term "afrocentric" I am not using it to mean the contemporary political movement within (primarily) the American black intellectual community. I mean the term literally as "centered in Africa." Therefore European and caucasian American Egyptologists and paleo-anthropologists are often "afrocentric" since their work and research interests are "centered in Africa," a continent named by the Romans just as "Europe" is a continent named after a mythological Phoencian princess who was raped by Zeus.
From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:"Af·ro·cen·tric
Pronunciation: "a-frO-'sen-trik
Function: adjective: centered on or derived from Africa or the Africans"